William Whitaker, "Disputations on the Holy Scripture Against the Papists: Chapter Six," pages 53-67

William Whitaker, "Disputations on the Holy Scripture Against the Papists: Chapter Six," pages 53-67. William Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity, Cambridge University, Master of St. John's College, and enemy of Arminianism, deals with Scriptures, canon, authority, sufficiency and perspicuity in light of the Scripture, history's authors, and Trent--specifically Bellarmine and Stapleton, two Romanist theologians. Whitaker in Chapter Six guts, vitiates and obviates Trent's decree on the canon with its anathemas against Protestants and the ancient church.

There are collateral, practical and pastoral points. 1) The enthusiasts and their open canon of authority, e.g. TBN, Crouch, Copeland, etc., adding to the canon their self-claimed revelations. 2) For the emergent church, the authority of Scripture. 3) For the Anglo-Catholics, the superiority of God's Word over the church authors, rather than the oft-insisted view of a near co-equivalence of tradition with Scripture. 4) The loss of canonical texts for music, liturgy and, in contemporary worship, the sermons. Back to Psalm-singing, the old 1662 BCP, and the Biblical Confessions of the Catholic Faith, the Reformation. 5) The loss of confidence in God's Word more widely.

This is not my writing, but the work of a great Reformed divine from the Church of England. If fair and accurate, perhaps you can hike this, send to, and disseminate to your friends. These classical texts must be reabsorbed and represented today.

The photos are associated with St. John's College, Cambridge University, and the Cathedral Church.

This work will stand alongside Martin Chemnitz's towering work on the Council of Trent. It may tower over Princeton's "Lion," B.B. Warfield, on the subject of Scriptures. Whitaker was a Prayer Book man, Calvinist, and Anglican of the first order magnitude. We believe he's better than Hooker.

In any case, this work still should be studied by any Reformed Churchman, especially Anglicans.

Available at, freely and downloadably:

http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&dq=william%20whitaker&ei=F3FOS_X-NpPuzQT98uzzCw&cd=1&id=PhYXAAAAIAAJ&as_brr=1&output=text&pg=PA42

---------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER VI.

WHEREIN THE TRUTH OF OUR CAUSE IS ILLUSTRATED BY OTHER TESTIMONIES.

Lastly, it is clear from the testimonies of councils, fathers and writers, that these books deserve no place in the true canon of scripture. Which argument, though it be merely human, yet mayhave force against them who themselves use no other in this cause.

The synod of Laodicea (c. 59') forbids the reading of any non-canonical books in the church, and allows only " the canonical books of the old and new Testament" to be used for that purpose. Then those are enumerated as canonical, which our churches receive ; not Tobit, nor Judith, nor the rest. There is, indeed, a clear error in this council. For Baruch is coupled with Jeremiah, (which former perhaps they thought to be a part of the latter,) and the epistles of the prophet Jeremiah are mentioned, whereas there is but one epistle of Jeremiah in the book of Baruch:—unless, perhaps, there may here be a fault in the Greek book, since these words are omitted in the Latin. There is another error with respect to the Apocalypse, which these fathers have not placed in the catalogue of the books of the new Testament. And it is certain that many in the church doubted for a long time concerning that book.

However, in the judgment of those fathers, these books of the old Testament, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and the two books of Maccabees, are not canonical. We form the same judgment of those books. The papists object, that the canon of scripture was not then settled; consequently, that they might leave these books out of the canon of scripture, but we cannot claim a similar right after this canon of scripture hath been defined by the church. But this is too ridiculous. For who can, without great impudence, maintain that there was no certain canon even of the old Testament for four hundred years after Christ; until, forsooth, the time of the council of Carthage ? Was the church so long ignorant what books pertained unto the canon of scripture ? A pretence at once false and impious! On the contrary, the fathers who lived before that council testify that they very well knew and understood what books were divine and canonical, as shall presently appear. Besides, that council of Carthage could not determine anything about the canon of scripture, so as to bind the whole church, since it was only a provincial one.

But (it will be said) the universal Trullan synod determined that these books should be received into the canon, and defined this matter by its authority. If we ask, how we are to understand that this is so ? They answer, from its approving the acts of the council of Carthage. But that is not enough to make this a clear case. For (besides that we have already sufficiently obviated the force of this argument), in the first place, the Trullan synod does, in the very same place and canon, approve also the acts of the council of Laodicea. If that canon, therefore, of the Trullan synod be genuine, the Laodicene and Carthaginian decrees concerning the canonical books do not contradict each other. Consequently, although these books be called in a certain sense canonical by the council of Carthage, yet they are in strictness uncanonical, as they are pronounced to be by the council of Laodicea. But if the judgments of these councils be contradictory, the Trullan synod failed in prudence when it approved the acts of both.

Secondly, the Trullan synod was held six hundred years after Christ. Now, was the canon of scripture unknown, or uncertain, or unapproved for so many ages ? Who in his right senses would choose to affirm this ?

Thirdly, the later church did not judge that the canon of scripture was in this way determined and defined by these councils; which may easily be understood from the testimonies of those writers who flourished in the church after those councils, as you shall hear presently. First of all, therefore, I will adduce the testimonies of the ancient fathers, then of the later, from which the constant judgment of the church concerning these books may be recognised. And although it may be somewhat tedious to go through them all, yet this so great multitude of witnesses must needs possess the greater authority in proportion to their numbers.

Melito of Sardis, as Eusebius tells us, (Lib. iv. cap. 26) testifies that he went into the East, and learned with exact accuracy all the books of the old Testament. He, therefore, considered the matter by no means doubtful; which would have been impossible without a fully ascertained knowledge of the canon. Now this Melito, who took so much pains in determining these books, recites precisely the same books of the old Testament as we do, with the single exception of the book of Wisdom. There are some, indeed, who think that this Wisdom of Solomon, which Melito mentions, is the book of Proverbs itself: but I do not agree witli them, for no cause can be given why the same book should be twice named. But though he might have mistaken in one book, he could not have mistaken in all, especially when using such diligence as he professes himself to have used. The error arose from the circumstance, that this book was in the hands of many, and was more read and had in greater esteem than the rest. Indeed, I acknowledge that of all Apocryphal books most respect was always exhibited towards this one: and this is the reason why Augustine seems to defend its authority (Lib. de Prasd. Sanct, c. 14); from which defence it is evident that this book was publicly read in the church, and that the church thought very honourably of its character.

Origen (in Eusebius, Lib. vi. c. 25) enumerates the same books as are acknowledged by our churches to be canonical, and says, that the testamentary books of the old Testament are two and twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet. And many others after him have made the same remark. Now, if the canonical books agree in number with the Hebrew letters, as these fathers determine, then it is certain that no place is left in the sacred canon for those books concerning which we now dispute ; otherwise there would be more canonical books than Hebrew letters. But those books which we concede to be truly canonical correspond by a fixed proportion and number to the elements of the Hebrew alphabet.

Athanasius says, in his Synopsis : " Our whole scripture is divinely inspired, and hath books not infinite in number, but finite, and comprehended in a certain canon." There was, therefore, at that time a fixed canon of scripture. He subjoins: "Now these are the books of the old Testament." Then he enumerates ours, and no others, and concludes : " The canonical books of the old testament are two and twenty, equal in number to the Hebrew letters." But, in the meanwhile, what did he determine concerning the rest? Why, he plainly affirms them to be uncanonical. For thus he proceeds : " But, besides these, there are also other non-canonical books of the old Testament, which are only read to the catechumens." Then he names the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, the fragments of Esther, Judith, Tobit. " These," says he, "are the non-canonical books of the old Testament." For Athanasius makes no account of the books of Maccabees. He does not mention Esther in the catalogue, but afterwards remarks, that this book belongs to another volume ; — perhaps to Ezra, by whom Isidore and others say that book was written. And some fathers, when enumerating the books of scripture, do not mention this by name, either because they thought it part of some other book, or esteemed it apocryphal on account of those apocryphal additions of certain chapters.

Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, speaks thus in the Prologue to his Exposition of the Psalms: " The law of the old Testament is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to correspond with, the number of the letters." By the term " the Law" he denotes the whole scripture of the old Testament.

Nazianzen, in his verses on the genuine books of sacred scripture, fixes the same number of the books of the old Testament. These are the lines of Nazianzen, in which he declares that he counts twenty-two books in the canon,—that is, so many in number as the Hebrew letters:

'ApXaiovs piv edrjKa 8vo Kai Cucchti 9ij9Xovf,
Tots Twv 'Klipmav ypappatrw avTiBiTovt^. [Ed., Greek text that does not work in this venue.]

He omits mentioning Esther; the reason of which we have before explained.

Cyril of Jerusalem, in his fourth catechetical discourse, hath written many prudent and pious directions upon this matter. " Do thou," says he, " learn carefully from the church what are the books of the old Testament. Read the divine scriptures, the two and twenty books3." Thus he shews that there were no more than twenty-two divine books. Then he enumerates the same books as are received by us for canonical, save that he includes in that number the book of Baruch, because he took it (though wrongly, as we shall prove anon) for a part of the book of Jeremiah. Now if any shall affirm that nevertheless there are other canonical books besides these, Cyril will refute him with this splendid objurgation: IloXi/ aov (ppovifiwrepoi r\aav O'i airooTo\oi Kai o'i apyaloi €ttiffKoiroi, o\ Tjjs e«-(cX»7
Epiphanius (Flaer. vm. contra Epicuraaos*) counts twenty-seven books of the old Testament, which he says wore delivered by God to the Jews ; or rather, as he subjoins, twenty-two : cos To. irap O.vtois (TToiyeia Tuov EftpatKWV 'ypa/ULndriav apiQp-ovfjLevai. For so he determines that the genuine books of the old Testament are equal in number to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. But some books (as Epiphanius says) are doubled. Hence arises that variety in the sum ; being counted when doubled, twenty-two, and, taking each book severally, twenty-seven. Then he adds, " There are also two other books which are doubtful, — the Wisdom of Sirach, and that of Solomon, besides some others which are apocryphal." He calls some dubious, some merely apocryphal. The same author writes, in his book of Weights and Measures', that the Jews sent to king Ptolemy twenty-two books transcribed in golden letters, which he enumerates in a previous passage ; although Josephus, in the beginning of his Antiquities, relates that only the five books of Moses were sent. In this place he writes thus of those two books, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, which lie had in the former citation called dubious : " They are indeed useful books, but are not included in the canon, and were not deposited in tho ark of the covenant." Which is as much as to say plainly, that they are not to be counted canonical.

Ruffinus, in his Exposition of the Apostles' Creed, says, that he intends to designate the volumes of the old and new Testaments, which are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost himself; and then he enumerates our books in both Testaments, subjoining : " But it should be known that there are other books also, which were called by the ancients not canonical but ecclesiastical, the Wisdom of Solomon and of Sirach, the book of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees. These," says he, " they would have to be read in churches, but that nothing should be advanced from them for confirming the authority of faith." The papist Pamelius praises this.

I come now to Jerome, who most plainly of all rejects these books from the canon, and argues strenuously against their canonical authority, and shews himself a most vehement adversary of these books. It would be tedious to review all his testimonies. In the Prologus Galeatus to Paulinus, " As," says he, " there are two and twenty letters, so there are counted two and twenty books." Then he adds: " This Prologue to the scriptures may serve as a sort of helmed head-piece for all the books which we have translated from the Hebrew into Latin, to let us know that whatever is out of these is to be placed amongst the Apocrypha. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, and Jesus, and Judith, and Tobit, are not in the canon1." Testimonies of the same sort occur everywhere in his books.

Gregory the Great, in his Commentaries on Job (Lib. xix. cap. 16), expressly writes that the books of Maccabees are not canonical; and there is no doubt that he thought the same of the other books also.

To these authorities of the ancient fathers, I will subjoin the testimony of Josephus, which exactly agrees with them, as it lies in his first book against Apion the grammarian, and is transcribed by Eusebius in the tenth chapter of the third book of his Eccl. To shew that these testimonies avail us nothing.

Indeed I will not dissemble their answer, nor conceal any thing from you that 1 know. Well then, in order to break the force of these testimonies and overturn our argument, some of them bring two objections: the first, that these fathers spoke of the Jewish, not of the Christian canon: the second, that the canon was not yet fixed; wherefore those fathers are not to be blamed for determining otherwise concerning the canon than the church afterwards defined, while we, nevertheless, are precluded from a similar liberty. Let us briefly obviate both objections.

First of all, these fathers whom I have cited do speak of the canon of Christians, as any one who looks at their words themselves will readily perceive. The synod of Laodicea prescribes what books should be read as canonical in the churches. Melito declares that he had taken pains to find out what books should be received; and this he did surely not for the sake of the Jews, but for his own. Athanasius says that those books which he calls uncanonical were wont to be read only to the catechumens. Now the catechumens were Christian catechumens. Cyril forbids the reading of those books which he calls apocryphal, and says that the apostlea and old bishops and masters of the church had taken no other books into the canon than those which arc received by us. Who does not see that he is speaking of the Christian canon'.' Although perhaps Cyril was too vehement in forbidding these books to be even read: for the other fathers, although they determine them to be apocryphal, yet permit their perusal. Ruffinus says, that those only which our churches also receive were received into the canon by the ancients (who doubtless were Christians), but that the rest were called by those same ancients, not canonical, but ecclesiastical. So Jerome, writing to Paulinus a Christian bishop, makes none others canonical than we do, and briefly describes the contents of these books, and of no others. Therefore he acknowledged no other canon of the sacred books than we do now. In his preface to the books of Chronicles he writes in these plain words: " The church knows nothing of apocryphal writings; we must therefore have recourse to the Hebrews, from whose text the Lord speaks, and his disciples choose their examples." " What is not extant with them is to be flung away from us," says Jerome,
in his preface to Ezra and Nehemiah. And elsewhere, in his preface to the books of Solomon, he hath these words : " As therefore the church, while it reads Judith and Tobit and the books of Maccabees, yet receives them not amongst the canonical scriptures; so she may read these two volumes also [the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach] for the edification of the people, not for confirming tlie authority of articles of faith3." Plainly Jerome speaks of the Christian church, and determines that the canon of the old Testament is no other with Christians than it was with the Hebrews. They are absurd, therefore, who imagine a double canon. Again, in his first book against the Pelagians, he blames a heretic for citing testimonies from the Apocrypha, when proposing to prove something about the kingdom of heaven.

In the next place, whereas they say that the canon of scripture was not then fixed, it is but fair that they should speak out, and teach us when afterwards it was fixed. If it be said, in the council of Florence or of Trent, these are but modern; and, I am very sure, they will not affirm that it was fixed so late. If in the council of Carthage, that council of Carthage was not general. If in the Trullan, those canons are censurable in many respects, even in the opinion of the papists themselves, as we have shewn clearly above. Will they concede then, either that there was no definite canon of scripture for six hundred years after Christ, or that these books were not received into the canon for so many ages ? This indeed would be sufficient to overturn the authority of the books. Let them answer, therefore, and mark the precise time, that we may understand when the canon of scripture was at length defined and described. If they can name any general council in which is extant the public judgment of the church concerning the canonical books, let them produce it. Except this Trullan council, they have absolutely none at all. And this Trullan does not precisely affirm these books to be canonical, but only confirms the council of Carthage ; which is of no consequence, since it also confirms the council of Laodicea, and the papists themselves deny all credit to the Trullan canons. Thus they are left without defence on any side. However, that you may the better see how empty that is which they are wont to urge about the Trullan synod; I will now shew, by the most illustrious and certain testimonies of those men who have governed and taught the church of Christ in. more recent times, that since that council these books were nevertheless not held to be canonical in the church.

Isidore, who lived almost in those very times, says (in Lib. de Offic.) that the old Testament was settled by Ezra in two and twenty books, " that the books in the law might correspond in number with the letters." John Damascene (Lib. iv. c. 18.) says: " It must be known that there are two and twenty books of the old Testament, according to the alphabet of the Hebrew language." Thus Damascene agrees with those ancient doctors concerning the number of the canonical books of the old Testament. The Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach he praises indeed, but puts them out of the canon: the rest he does not even mention. Yet he lived, as every one knows, after the Trullan Synod. So Nicephorus (apud Cyrum Prodromurn in versibus):

rys fiiv TroXotar (ttriv ("koiti Kvo.

" There are two and twenty books of the old Testament." Likewise Leontius determines, in his book of Sects (Act. 2), that there are no more canonical books of the old Testament than the twenty-two which our churches receive. Thus he speaks: " Of the old Testament there are twenty-two books." Then he goes through all the books of the old and new Testaments in order, and finally subjoins, " These are the books, old and new, which arc esteemed canonical in the church3." Rabanus Maurus (De Inst. Cler. c. 54) says, that the whole old Testament was distributed by Ezra into two and twenty books, " that there might be as many books in the law as there are letters4." Radulphus (Lib. xiv. in Lev. c. 1.): " Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, although they be read for instruction in the church, yet have they not authority5." Therefore they are not canonical. Hugo S. Victoris (Prolog. Lib. i. dc Sacram. c. 7) says, that " these books are read indeed, but not written in the body of the text or in the authoritative canon; that is, such as the book of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon,
and Ecclesiasticus." Again, (Didascal. Lib. iv. c. 8) " As there are twenty-two alphabetic letters, by means of which we write in Hebrew, and speak what we have to say, and the compass of the human voice is included in their elementary sounds; so twenty-two books are reckoned, by means of which, being as it were the alphabet and elements in the doctrine of God, the yet tender infancy of our man is instructed, while it still hath need of milk6." Twentytwo letters form the language, and twenty-two books the faith. The same is the opinion of Richardus de S. Victore, (Exception. Lib. ii. c. 9). For, after telling us that there are twenty-two canonical books of the old Testament, he presently subjoins: " There are besides other books, as the Wisdom of Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and the book of Judith and Tobit, and the book of Maccabees, which are read indeed, but not written in the canon7." In which words he plainly denies them to be canonical. And presently after, in the same place: " In the old Testament there are certain books which are not written in the canon, and yet are read, as the Wisdom of Solomon, &c." So Lyra, (Prolog, in libros Apocryph.); Dionysius Carthusianus, (Comment, in Gen. in princip.); Abulensis, (in Matt. c. 1); Antoninus, (3 p. Tit. Xvhi. c. 5). Cardinal Hugo, in his Prologue to Joshua, calls Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus, apocryphal; and says that the church does not receive them for proof of the faith, but for instruction in life. These are his lines; in metre, poor enough; his sense, excellent.

Restant apocryphi, Jesus, Sapientia, Pastor,
Et Machabreorum libri, Judith atque Tobias:
Hi, quod sunt dubii, sub canone non numerantur;
Sed quia vera canunt, ecclesia suscipit illos.

But, in what sense the church always received them, the same author explains elsewhere (in Prol. Hieron. in Lib. Regum)8: " Such the church receives not for proof of the faith, but for instruction
in morals." Which other fathers also had said before him. The Gloss upon Gratian's decree (Dist. 16) affirms that the Bible has some apocryphal books in it. Erasmus in many places maintains the same opinion, and Cardinal Cajetan most expressly. Now all these flourished after the Trullan synod, and some of them after the Florentine; and the church of Rome acknowledges them all as her sons and disciples; except perhaps Erasmus, whom she hath expelled, as he deserves, from her family: although Leo the Tenth called even him, in a certain epistle, his most dearly beloved son. Antonio Bruccioli, an Italian, translated the old Testament into the Italian language, and wrote commentaries upon the canonical books, but omitted the apocryphal. Even since the council of Trent, Arias Montanus, who was himself present in that synod, and published that vast biblical work, and is called by Gregory XIII. his son, in an edition of the Hebrew Bible with an interlinear version declares that the orthodox church follows the canon of the Hebrews, and reckons apocryphal the books of the old Testament which were written in Greek.

Thus, therefore, I conclude: If these books either were canonical, or so declared and defined by any public and legitimate judgment of the church; then these so numerous fathers, ancient and modern, could not have been ignorant of it, or would not have dissented, especially since they were such as desired both to be, and to be esteemed, catholics. But these fathers, so numerous, so learned, so obedient to the godly precepts of the church, were not aware that the church had decreed any such thing concerning the canon of scripture, and openly pronounced these books to be apocryphal. Therefore these books are not canonical, and were never inserted in the sacred canon of scripture by any legitimate authority or sanction of the church. Whence it follows that our church, along with all other reformed churches, justly rejects these books from the canon ; and that the papists falsely assert them to be canonical. If they demand testimonies, we have produced them. If they ask for a multitude, they ought to be content with these which are so many, and may well satisfy their desires with them.